Published on:

By

Steinmetz v. WOLGAMOT, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 1st Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.

In 1997, Dr. Steinmetz enrolled in a program known as AEGIS, which the defendants informed him would protect his assets and reduce his tax liabilities. The IRS disagreed and sent Dr. Steinmetz a deficiency notice on December 31, 1999. Years later the doctor sued the promoters of the tax shelter for fraud and his lawyer for legal malpractice.

The trial court granted the lawyer’s motion for summary judgment and the appellate court affirmed. In Illinois, the discovery rule applies. The plaintiff must bring his case within two years of the discovery of the legal malpractice. Here, the plaintiff claimed that he was unaware of the problem for many years (while his tax controversy with the IRS was being resolved). The Court disagreed. It held that the statute of limitations was triggered on December 31, 1999, when he received the Notice of Deficiency from the IRS. Because the doctor did not bring his case until December 2005, his claim was barred.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Opinion – this article appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin on Tuesday August 13, 2013.

 

By Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

The ARDC has charged a 2007 Northern Illinois graduate, Reema Bajaj, for her role in criminal conduct, namely pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of prostitution, lying to the ARDC and failing to answer some questions accurately in her application to be a member of the Illinois bar. According to the ARDC complaint, which can be found on its website, Ms. Bajaj engaged in sex acts for money.  In 2011, she was charged with prostitution by the States Attorney of DeKalb County. The case has received extensive coverage from the website abovethelaw.com and other media outlets.  I have never met Bajaj and know of this case only through media reports.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The case is captioned, Klever Belisario Miranda v. Michael H. Said, 11-0552, Supreme Court of Iowa, July 19, 2013.

This is an immigration malpractice case. Plaintiffs were two citizens of Ecuador who entered the United States without documents. Their son, Cesar, joined them in 1995. They gave birth to another child, Ronaldo, in 1998.

In 2005 Klever received notice of a removal order. He consulted with Said. Said allegedly advised him to return to Ecuador and have his son Cesar sponsor him and Nancy for citizenship once Cesar obtained citizenship.  He advised Cesar to use form I-130, which permits a citizen to sponsor a relative’s application for citizenship. Further, he advised the plaintiffs to use form I-601, which permits an applicant who is otherwise ineligible, to be admitted into the country based on “extreme hardship” to a qualifying relative.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Grace v. Law, 2013 NY Slip Op 5383 – NY: Appellate Div., 4th Dept. 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is a New York case in which the defendant lawyer raised an important issue: in a legal malpractice case is the plaintiff required to exhaust all of his appeals in the underlying litigation before she can bring the legal malpractice action?

The answer is “No.”  The plaintiff is allowed to resolve or abandon the underlying case.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Minnesota Supreme Court has disciplined a lawyer for posing as a client of a lawyer on a website and posting a false negative review.

Comment: This is another example of poor judgment in internet activity being used to punish a lawyer.

The case is captioned:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Matter of O’Hare (2013 NY Slip Op 05320).

The New York Appellate Division has suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for one year for creating an online profile on a lesbian dating site. The lawyer who is male was also convicted of attempted aggravated harassment.

The Court described the facts as follows: “The underlying facts, which are undisputed, are as follows: the respondent, using the internet, went to a dating site for lesbians and created a sham posting by impersonating a woman whom he knew years ago; he used both his home and work computers for this activity. The respondent was aware that the sham posting would likely cause embarrassment to the woman, who was a mother of three.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Recently, the undersigned encountered an arbitration clause drafted by a successful Chicago law firm.

I will quote the relevant language in full and then discuss what the language means for a client.  I am not in any way criticizing the clause or the lawyers who drafted it.

“This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Illinois and any disputes concerning the Agreement, our fees that relate in any way to our representation, including any claims relating to our billings for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence or malpractice or other disputes over our representation, shall be resolved under Illinois law in Chicago, Illinois through a summary procedure involving limited discovery in which we will jointly appoint a qualified arbitrator who specializes in such matters to promptly resolve any disputes through arbitration, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties.  These limitations shall be imposed on any arbitration: (i) five (5) depositions, thirty (30) interrogatories, forty (40) document requests and fifty (50) requests for admissions per side; (ii) pre-hearing briefs totaling fifteen (15) pages per side; (iii) post-hearing briefs totaling twenty-five (25) pages per side; (iv) no more than three (3) days for hearing testimony and argument. Because this procedure for dispute resolution involves a waiver of [Client’s] rights and ours, we jointly acknowledge that this alternative procedure for dispute resolution waives our respective rights to seek relief through litigation or to have a trial by jury or to conduct full discovery or to appeal or to otherwise exercise rights available in litigation, rather than through arbitration. It is therefore, important that this matter be carefully discussed with independent counsel and only after that review has been completed can we jointly agree to this alternative dispute-resolution procedure. In the event agreement cannot be reached on a suitable arbitrator, we shall jointly seek the assistance of the American Bar Association for the selection of a suitable person. (Emphasis supplied).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

GROCHOCINSKI v. MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW, LLP, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2013 – Google Scholar.

The Seventh Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of this legal malpractice case filed by a bankruptcy trustee against Mayer Brown Rowe and Maw.  This case has garnered some attention in the legal ethics press. The only problem with this case is that it is unique and it is unlikely to have any precedential value.

The case began with a contract dispute between Spehar Capital and CMGT, Inc., a start-up company with no assets to speak of. Mayer Brown represented CMGT. Mayer Brown’s only important task was to obtain financing for the CMGT.  The financing never materialized.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Goldfine v. BARACK, FERRAZZANO, KIRSCHBAUM AND PERLMAN, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 6th Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Sixth Division, has affirmed a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against a defendant law firm. The allegation of negligence was that the law firm failed to preserve the plaintiffs’ claims under the Illinois Securities laws against Shearson Lehman. In short, the alleged error was the failure to timely file a claim for rescission against Shearson Lehman.

In a legal malpractice case, the court must always begin with an analysis of the underlying transaction or the underlying lawsuit. Here, the plaintiffs had a valid claim under the Illinois Securities Laws against Shearson Lehman. Under the Illinois Securities Law, the purchaser has six months from the time he learns of the right of rescission. The law firm failed to serve the notice of rescission and the Illinois courts rejected the plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

This is a complaint filed by the ARDC, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The ARDC’s complaint alleges that an attorney, Tina Marie Jacobs, filed a foreclosure case against a homeowner. The ARDC alleges that the lawyer failed to provide the homeowner with a grace period notice required by the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. The statute sets forth the exact text the grace period notice must contain:

“The notice required in this subsection (c) shall state the date on which the notice was mailed, shall be headed in bold 14-point type “GRACE PERIOD NOTICE”, and shall state the following in 14-point type: “YOUR LOAN IS MORE THAN 30 DAYS PAST DUE. YOU MAY BE EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY. IT MAY BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO SEEK APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING. YOU HAVE A GRACE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO OBTAIN APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING. DURING THE GRACE PERIOD, THE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM TAKING ANY LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAY GRACE PERIOD IF YOU OBTAIN HOUSING COUNSELING FROM AN APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCY. A LIST OF APPROVED COUNSELING AGENCIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION.”

Continue reading →
Contact Information
111 W Washington St, #1437
Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312.357.1515

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2026, The Clinton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design